Hello,
> On 9/09/2019, at 8:45 PM, Jihyun Yu wrote:
>
> It seems that time from ping command fluctuates. Here's a output from ping
> command.
> [...snip ping with negative rtt...]
This is symptomatic of unsynchronized time stamp counters (TSC).
I would expect that setting:
# sysctl kern.time
On 28/11/2016, at 4:25 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
> [...]
> What kind of wifi are people using
> on the ALIX serving as an AP?
I'm running an RT2860 via ral(4) on an Alix 2d2 -- I'm seeing
about 1.1MB/s when transferring 47MB from it through a couple
of walls, and with another network at -74dBm on the s
On 20/09/2016, at 9:53 PM, Richard Procter wrote:
>
> On 20/09/2016, at 8:00 AM, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
>
>> On 16-09-19 19:56:31, Kapfhammer, Stefan wrote:
>>> Hello Edgar,
>>>
>>> I have no Soekris, but Apu2 is also connected
>>> with a
On 20/09/2016, at 8:00 AM, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> On 16-09-19 19:56:31, Kapfhammer, Stefan wrote:
>> Hello Edgar,
>>
>> I have no Soekris, but Apu2 is also connected
>> with a serial cable.
>>
>> When cable is plugged in the controlling pc
>> before booting, it is to be found as /dev/cuaU???0.
>
On 7/03/2014, at 2:15 PM, Richard Procter wrote:
>
> I've some ideas about solutions [for modifying checksums more cleanly] but
> will
> leave those for another email.
Shifting this old thread to tech@: I've posted a patch that re-instates
the pf algorithm of OpenBSD 5.4
On 27/02/2014, at 11:04 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> There was a method of converting an in-bound checksum, due to NAT
> conversion, into a new out-bound checksum. A process is required,
> it's how NAT works.
>
> A new method of version is being used. It is mathematically equivelant
> to the ol
On 27/02/2014, at 11:04 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I believe you are posting cast aspersions on the pf efforts.
Theo,
I'll insist then that I think pf is a superior piece of code
which I benefit from every day, and that Henning's efforts
to simplify it are so very welcome in a world addicted to
On 24/02/2014, at 9:33 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Richard Procter [2014-01-25 20:41]:
>> On 22/01/2014, at 7:19 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
>>> * Richard Procter [2014-01-22 06:44]:
>>>> This fundamentally weakens its usefulness, though: a correct
>>&
On 28/01/2014, at 4:19 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2014-01-25 14:40, Richard Procter a écrit :
>> I'm not saying the calculation is bad. I'm saying it's being
>> calculated from the wrong copy of the data and by the wrong
>> device. And it's not just
On 22/01/2014, at 7:19 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Richard Procter [2014-01-22 06:44]:
>> This fundamentally weakens its usefulness, though: a correct
>> checksum now implies only that the payload likely matches
>> what the last NAT router happened to have in its memory
&
On 2014-01-15, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014-01-14, Richard Procter wrote:
>>
>> I've a question about the new checksum changes. [...]
>> My understanding is that checksums are now always recalculated when
>> a header is altered, never updated.
>>
Hi all,
I'm using OpenBSD 5.3 to provide an Alix-based home firewall. Thank
you all for the commitment to elegant, well-documented software which
isn't pernicious to the mental health of its users.
I've a question about the new checksum changes[0], being interested
in such things and having lis
12 matches
Mail list logo
